‘Obviously, God is a God of love, not a God of incompetence or lies’

Interior of St. Andrew's Catholic Church in Virginia (photo by Joe Ravi, via Wikimedia Commons).

We bring you another testimony this morning, this one submitted by a reader who wished to remain anonymous. Elements of his journey wrestling with matters of science and faith will no doubt resonate with many of you, as it does with me. And I felt one of his lines simply summed up the overall message of evolutionary creationism so well that I had to use it as the title of this piece. Emphases mine.

My story is a pretty long one, but I’ll try to condense it as best I can. I’m 18 right now, and will be 19 in about 2 weeks. I was born and raised in the Reform Tradition of Judaism. When I was about 17, I realized “I’m going to die, and I need to figure out what I can about whether or not God exists.” Therein began the journey.

Up to this point, I had always been fairly agnostic. I started with people like Richard Deem (God and Science) and read his entire website. He’s an intelligent design theorist, if you didn’t know. From this, I concluded that the universe is highly fine-tuned for the appearance of carbon-based life. Some atheists will claim “human life,” but this is just incorrect. In the process, I became (guess what?) an ID believer.

The reason I stopped supporting evolution is that I bought into the science-religion conflict nonsense and I found the idea “evolution disproves God,” pushed by Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins (among others) to be very, very distasteful. So yes, Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Coyne are part of the root of the problem, in my opinion.

Anyway, I also explored the texts of Judaism. However, the story of Judaism is (unfortunately) one of an unfulfilled promise. God promises Abraham a vast nation, but the Old Testament ends with the Israelites having returned and awaiting the Messiah in Malachi. I found this rather unfulfilling, as the Jews continue to wait for the Messiah today.

Obviously, God is a God of love, not a God of incompetence or lies. I eventually ran across a lot of Christian sources, mainly from people like William Lane Craig, John Lennox and Alister McGrath. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller were part of this as well, but I haven’t read everything they have written. In the process, Collins and Miller pretty much convinced me that there was a third way: evolutionary creation/theistic evolution.

About a month ago, I walked into a Catholic Church and asked about converting, which I now plan to do. I will be a Catholic sometime in the very foreseeable future. I think that the evidence for Jesus being who he said he was is very strong. As someone knowledgeable in history, it’s very, very rare to have sources as consistent as the Gospels. Either they were all written from the “Q” source, which recounts what Jesus really did (and doesn’t decrease the Gospels’ value), or they are telling the truth. That’s not even talking about the fact that the Resurrection is supported by four separate sources AND a man who never met Jesus (St. Paul). N.T. Wright was very, very convincing on this matter.

Finally, I will say that my fear of death has basically vanished since I’ve accepted that Jesus is our Savior, and He will return to judge the living and the dead.

Have you also struggled with the conflict between science and faith presented by many prominent individuals and groups, some believers, some not? Have you, like this author, eventually found peace in the matter or have experiences with the church in this realm pushed you away from faith? In any case, we would love to hear and share your story. Please contact Tyler or see here for details.

  • David Sirrine

    This is probably the most encouraging thing I’ve ever read on this site. The truth really does change lives!

    • Glad you think so, David. Thanks!

      • Dylan Cook

        …and believe me, Answers in Genesis will be in for a shock when God sends them to the pits.

  • Joe Richardson

    Weren’t the first gospels written decades after Christ was supposedly crucified?

    • They were, but this is not at all uncommon for historical documents from the time period. In fact, the gospels were written down much closer to the events say discuss than a number of other documents that most historians consider to be accurate accounts of the reins of Roman kings or ancient wars.

  • David Emery

    I disagree with his assertion that all the gospels are from the Q source. Q was hypothesized based on the passages that Matthew and Luke have in common, but are absent from Mark. The theory goes that Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q as sources.